crime, Muslims killing Muslims andrnbliiming the Serbs for propaganda. It isrnonh one example of the horrors of thernpropaganda war and the gullibility ofrntlic Western news media.rnAt the very beginning of the war, thernehicf surgeon of the Bosnian army. Dr.rnNaim Kadie, over mv vehement protest,rnpermitted Bosnian army snipers to operaternfrom the hospital roof and from severalrnwindoxss on the upper floors of ourrnhospital while the lower floors were fullrnof war ietims: man’ civilian as well asrncombatant Muslims. Thus, he transformedrna safe haven into a military target.rnThe Western media was quick tornreport the dailv shelling of the hospitalrnb Serb artillerv. Thcv either did notrnknow or did not care that Muslims hadrnnrade it a military target.rnIn August 1992, I was approachedrnhx a British officer of the UNPROFORrn(t’nitcd Nations Protective Forces). liernwanted to gixe me an official protest forrnthe firing on his troops by Muslims fromrnthe hospital. Since I did not have thernauthority to accept such a document, Irnreferred him to Dr. Kadic, who had becomernthe administratix’c director of thernhos])ital. His comment: “Dr. Kadic willrnnot admit that there are people shootingrnfrom the hospital.” I knew thcv werernusing the windows of m office forrnsniping.rn’I he media stresses that Serbs occupyrn70 percent of the land in Bosnia-Ilerzegornina, but thcv fail to mention thatrnSed^s hold clear title to 64 to 70 percentrnof that land. The also fail to mentionrnthat Serbs are the farmers of the regionrnand that Muslims hae been the urbanitcs.rnFarmers al\as need more landrnthan factorv workers or civil servants.rnSerbs lost the propaganda war earlvrnon in Croatia, een though thev successfulh’rndefended the land they havernowned there for centuries. Once thernWest liad determined that the Serbsrnwere the illains in Croatia, it was easy tornshift the aggressors from Croatia tornBosnia-Iler/egovina. The Muslims werernhapp to help maintain the image.rnStrange that militarv forces from Croatiarnha e been invading Bosnia-Herzegovinarnfor months, but there has been no seriousrntalk of sanctions, embargoes, orrnbombs against Croatia.rnThe damage done to our spirit, vilifiedrnb the wodd and bv our former alliesrnand friends, will take much longer tornheal than the bodies of the traumatizedrnictims of this mindless war. I can attestrnto that, since my wounds have healed.rnM’ spirit may neer heal.rnDr. Borisa Starovic is dean of thernMedical School at the University ofrnSarajevo. This story was told to andrntransmitted by Bruce Ralston, arnbusinessman from Delaware who spentrnfour months on a humanitarian missionrnto Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, andrnCroatia.rnLetter FromrnLondonrnby Robin LeernArguing With ApesrnIt was all the way back in 1860, whenrnSamuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford,rnparticipated in an open debate v’ith T.H.rnHuxley, Darwin’s leading supporter, thatrnat least for England the evolutionary debaternwas effectively decided once andrnfor all. The bishop was judged to havernlost the argument by virtue of his memorablyrnsnide query as to whether it wasrnon the mother’s or the father’s side thatrnhis opponent was descended from anrnape. With hindsight it would seem thatrnthe bishop could have amply justifiedrnhis position if only he had claimed thatrnChurch doctrine relies not on thernstrength of argument but rather on faith.rnAccording to a book recently publishedrnin England, The Facts of Life:rnShattering the Myth of Darwinismrnby Richard Milton, scientists have notrnbeen playing it straight with us laymen.rnOur schoolchildren arc taught aboutrnMendel’s experiments with garden peasrnand about industrial melanism in moths,rnand they perform genetic experimentsrnon unsuspecting fruit flics in class. Yetrneven here, at the secondary-school leelrnof biologv, it seems there are still somernserious unanswered questions that perplexrneven those who do not believe inrnthe biblical Creation. Can acquiredrncharacteristics be inherited? Do betteradaptedrnspecies arise spontaneouslyrnwhen the cnironment changes, or dornexisting variants merely take over? Is thernscope for mutation unlimited? Is it governedrnsolely by chance?rnThe natural history museums that wernlamen subsidize through taxes “reconstruct”rnlifelike models of primitive manrnand display “chronologies” of the earthrnand its inhabitants without ever lettingrnon that these are based on guesswork. Inrn1991, Mrs. Joan Ahrens, a resident ofrnCapetown, was astonished to read of anrnarchaeological find in her native SouthrnAfrica. Rock paintings discovered in thernbush had been analyzed by Oxford University’srnradio carbon accelerator unit asrnbeing 1,200 years old and were pronouncedrnbv experts to be the earliest attemptsrnat artistic self-expression by therncountry’s bushmen. The enraged housewifernstepped forward to explain that thernpaintings had been produced in her artrnclasses and subsequently removed fromrnher garden by unknown vandals. Inrnshort, scientific dating methods can bernwildly inaccurate; some scientists confessrnthere is no conclusive fossil evidencernto show that life could have evolved, orrndid evolve, from a common ancestor.rnThough familiar, reassuring, and almostrnuniversally accepted, neo-Darwinist theor-rndoes not rely on the kinds of factsrnand proofs that are generally associatedrnwith the scientific method.rnYet man of these scientists, confrontedrnwith the headline-grabbingrnrevelations of Mr. Milton’s expose, havernargued that the skeptic is out to misleadrnus laymen. Darwinism ma not hae arnsimple answer to everything, they maintain,rnbut there is no alternative theoryrnthat is more plausible. The philosophicalrncrux of the debate is weighted on thernside of the somewhat circular reasoningrnof the “cock-up theory” of natural selectionrn—the fittest survive, those who survivernare the fittest—seasoned with catastrophismrnto explain the unexplainable;rnhow life first emerged, why thousandsrnof species have suddenly died or arernmissing from the fossil record, why hugernamounts of helium are “missing” fromrnthe atmosphere, and other countlessrnanomalies. On the other side of the argumentrnarc those who adhere to a “conspiracyrntheory,” whether it be one ofrnGod the Creator, extraterrestrial colonization,rnsome form of Lamarckism,rnor a governing intelligence inherent tornliving structures, such as that which isrnattributed to nuclear particles.rnMr. Milton’s chief detractor is the eminentrnzoologist and author RichardrnDawkins, who (could it be a coincidence?)rnis also at Oxford. According tornlUNE 1994/39rnrnrn